In a 2018 integrated report, Capcom has demostrated why it must transition to a Recurring Revenue Model from a One Time Sale Model
Fuuuuuuuuuuu...! (Sorry Ray. I am pissed beyond rational thought.) ((Did not see this coming from a company that's put paid DLC on disc. Color me that surprised.)
Capcom may be thinking more along the lines of something similar to EA's service. Granted EA has more francises, but Capcom has some very popular ones as well. Monster Hunter, Resident Evil, Street Fighter, Mega Man....etc. They could also put some classic titles on this service. The only thing left to consider is the monthly fee.
It's never going to work if too many companies start their own streaming/content services. Right now, piracy online for TV shows and movies has exploded again after years of decline due to companies pulling from Netflix to start their own services. People want convenience. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, but they're only going to be fragmenting their own audiences doing it.
@Sirk I agree with the fragmentation, but companies want to control their own content and keep their profits. All digital will be the future, (unfortunately) and I can even see the day when consoles will pay game devolopers for their "services". Similar to how cable companies pay stations for their content. Imagine if EA, Activision, Ubisoft,and Rockstar went all digital ONLY, and in order to play their games you had to subscribe to their exclusive channel service app. Unfortunately, thats the future. Yes, people want everything on a single service like Netflix, but companies like Disney, and Hulu and Amazon want to control their own content and profits. Piracy will always exist, thats a moot point.
I could have told you that after the release of SF5. That game was built around a reoccurring service. If it’s done right it can be ok, like incorporating free DLC with it (Halo 5, GT Sport) but it’s once they start giving competitive advantages behind the paywalls or made crazy long grinds in order to advance in a paid game, then i’ll have a serious issue with it. Otherwise let the people that wanna buy Mts buy them.I’ll continue to not do that.
SFV is definitely the poster child of GaaS for this gen. Piece mealing characters, costumes and other types of DLC locked behind a paywall really set the stage for how Capcom was going to be handling a lot of their games moving forward. Still excited for Devil May Cry 5 but I will be staying away from unnecessary MTs.
Killer Instinct 2013 and Evolve are bigger poster children. Killer Instinct started the GaaS train this gen with season passes for characters that worked out to $120 for something like 21 characters after 3 seasons compared to SFV that had 34 after 3 seasons and Injustice 2 that had 28 at launch https://www.onmsft.com/news... .Killer instinct support wrapped with 29 characters. SFV was a case of trying to charge full price for MP only with not enough content. Badically an early access state, unpolished and unfinished to hit the MP Capcom world tour dates. Story mode came free later. Arcade Edition is how it should’ve launched and hopefully they never do that again. But Evolve! MP only Evolve cost money at retail and had $136 of DLC at launch not counting the season pass https://gamerant.com/evolve... . Later went FTP on PC so too bad if you bought it, then the dedicated servers shut down last month. I haven’t even talked about loot boxes yet
I can definitely see KI being up there with SFV and the GaaS revolution. I also believe MS didn't have a lot of confidence in KI and it was rushed out which is why they went with the insane F2P design for a fighting game. A very stupid decision. Evolve, well, I don't have a lot of experience with that game but imo it wasn't just the MTs but just the terrible gameplay that killed it. The point tho is that Capcom definitely set the stage early with how they we're going to handle a lot their games moving forward with SFV.
I don't get why it's on Capcom when it's actually a better model than capcom used in the past for Street Fighter Numbered games. Street Fighter 2 you had to buy whole new games. Skip 3 because that was a weird case. SFIV you had to buy a whole new game to get super content. Yes it was a $15 dollar upgrade or a whole new disc after, But SFV on year by year bases is giving more content than SFIV. They're realistically giving you alot more for free and your game will always be supported as long as the game is unlike vanilla SFIV. SFV imo is expensive, but if Sport games get away with a full price release every year, Capcom ain't at fault for a practice they've used since SFII but people complain about now
@teflon I'd rather get another complete package rather than one new character ever so often down the line. At least with the new editions you get a good amount of new characters, character balances, significant updates and modes, instead of waiting months and months for that one character to be revealed in whatever season you paid for. I really don't like the way todays fighting games are. Teasing one character at a time instead of just releasing them all at once.
As ganster said that I'll agree on, capcom released a bare bones game and didn't let the fans know about it. Characters that would have been there day one were put in dlc packages. If they would have released a complete game, even left it multi platform, they wouldn't be worried about money. No one likes incomplete games. In GT's case, Sony told everyone up front that this version is starting over and is geared towards Esport and not the next gran turismo. I didn't agree with it. Didn't even buy it. As I like single player and the VR is bare. But I understood and respected that Sony didn't want franchise fatigue. As you can see from their 1st and 2nd party, developers were given the green light to either change their games(gow) or make something new(horizon, Spiderman, ghost of tushima, etc).Those will or are complete games. Capcom just keeps chasing the wrong horse. Fans want mega man. Nope. Took years for them to respond. Fans want Onimusha and Dino crisis. Nope. They'll think about it. Took forever for monster hunter to come back to the system that launched its success where the fans were. RE being the only true hit because it worked in and out of VR. Just make the best game you can make. Don't cut corners. And the money will flow. Just ask Sony.
Cuz that well for Resident Evil...
God damn it did they learn nothing from Monster Hunter World?
See these publishers don't want to make a lot of money but rather ALL the money they don't really care about gamer good will.
Yes, that's right. They are public corporations; chasing money is their duty. If the service+MT model is more profitable, that's what they're going to chase. We, the gamers, are to blame for it being more profitable--not you or I personally perhaps, but the group as a whole.
Monster Hunter is an example of a continual revenue stream, so not sure what you're talking about. This comment section is full of people making wild, uniformed assumptions based on a sentence long quote from a financial report.
Wasn't Monster Hunter World their most profitable and best selling title ever? Was that not enough?
They want more lol the bad thing about success is that it makes them even more money hungry
I hope this doesnt happen to all games from Capcom. Im perfectly fine with dlc and the way it was handeled with RE7. Im totally against what they are doing to DMC5.
Okay, NOW I think it's a good time to feel concerned about Devil May Cry V. I wasn't concerned before since I felt there wasn't enough information, but this is a bit worrying. I want to believe their idea of "recurring revenue" for that game will not affect the progress of the game, only those who really want to go nuts with the Faust hat.
If a "recurring revenue" model is applied to DMC Im not buying it.
I already assumed that with the release style of MHW, it sold emotes and a few other things, so this is not really surprising.
Yeah, they think we are stupid. They are literally saying we are idiots because we will buy it anyway and this is the way it's going to be. scum Bags XD
Exactly. It is literally time to speak with our dollars. Don't buy in to this model for gaming. Turning into nothing but financial rape.
death to megaman, devil may cry, dead rising, sf, monster hunter, re.
If it means higher revenue for them, and it doesn't affect normal gameplay, do it. That means more kickass games like Devil May Cry, Survival Horror Resident Evil, megaman, etc. Series that were almost abandoned because of lower than expected sales. If they get too greedy and affect gameplay people will let them know, like they did with battlefront.
Not if but when they get too greedy. The model in and of itself is nothing but potential greed. Residual income is the desire for all corporate based business models today and that's where gaming is headed if gamer's don't pull back.
Capcom forgets that they need to rebuild their credibility beforehand. After Momster Hunter World,I start to wonder the point of supporting this company if they go to the opposite direction of progress.
Capcom just can’t stop being Capcom
God f*ckin damnit
So, if a game can't be successful as a single purchase model, then why is it more likely to be successful as a recurring transaction model. This is not unlike episodic, F2P or MT models really, and it is still based on the success of the game initially. The only difference is is that they don't have to expend as many resources to build the game, so the risk is minimized. No business model is a gaurantee of success, and what works in some places, may not work in others. AAA games are risky. They always have been. But when they succeed, they tend to succeed well. By the same token, a flop is a flop regardless of it's release paradigm, but I guess it's good that a company doesn't have to take as many risks. Who cares what the customer may like or prefer. If the customer can't be behind the company's new plans, then they can just be left behind. That is really the mentality that exists a lot right now within many publishing houses. I guess Leigh Alexander was right, just basing her coment on the wrong group of people. In the meantime, the companies that keep giving us what we've always liked, are doing better than ever before with those kinds of products. Nintendo, Sony, even Square Enix in some places. They even seem to be able to adopt new release paradigms and make money off those without abandoning markets, or making it enough of a company focus to release an investors report saying they have big intentions to move this way...except maybe Square who tries everything and says they're going to try it. In the meantime, as these publishers move away from these kinds of games, the more successful these more traditional companies keep giving us what we want become, because there is less competition in the market. By yet another same token, the market everyone is chasing becomes bloated and over-saturated where it becomes even harder to become successful because the market itself is limited, and only willing to give so much, and these paradigms can quickly lose players through attrition of the next big thing, leading to a struggle to always have the next big thing. See the mobile market, where it's cheap and easy to enter, and it ends up bringing everything down....except for those games which get substantial marketing budgets. Angry Birds and Candy Crush didn't become insanely successful by chance. They had huge marketing budgets backed by big publishers to make that happen. There are some exceptions which become successful, but they aren't the norm. All these publishers are doing are changing the resources from one place to another, but at least with resources in marketing, it's easy enough to cut losses before they're spent.
Funny that everybody mentions Nintendo and Sony as the companies doing it right as a business model when they are the worst in term of GAAS. Don't you pay for PSN? or Nintendo network? Don't they sell you theme, avatars, ect.? Don't companies that produce games for their platform need to pay royalties fees for each sells? Isn't that the ultimate form of GaAs or recurring revenue? PPL are quick to forget that Sony's primary goal when making a 1st party EXCLUSIVE game is to make you buy the PS4 Brand and not maximizing the direct investment of that game.
I never said that Sony, and even Nintendo, don't offer up GaaS games, or even that they couldn't be successful in that field. I'm saying that on a per game basis, they have both released and been successful off quite a few high profile AAA games, and some of their less high profile games. I specifically stated that at least Sony offers up stuff in that arena as well, and having that kind of content hasn't hindered their success elsewhere. Sony has other avenues to pursue to gain revenue. I never stipulated otherwise. But that doesn't mean that all these other companies have to pursue such an insular route to release their games. There is a wide market out there for all games, and Capcom's statements in their investor report deal with focusing much more on a market which can provide them with more revenue, but with less expenditure up front. We have all been in this community long enough to know what kind of games they mean by this, and how anyone can try to defend a publisher over that is beyond me. not that they need defense, they can do what they please, but it doesn't mean they aren't going to have people point out the logical fallacies and real world market conditions which don't make the publishers ideal result a forgone conclusion.
Then I will be buying less Capcom games as they transition
Of course, they want to make money and be profitable so they must be evil. Last I checked, Capcom wasn't in the charity business and like others, similar companies produce reports on how to maximize profits. Perhaps you don't like MT but, they are big money makers for games like PUBG, Overwatch, Fortnite, GTA, Call of Duty, any EA sports games, etc.
Being profitable is not evil. Being greedy is evil. Corporations can't seem to tell the difference. It's up to consumers to draw that line. If we don't then the actual definition of being greedy will be completely redefined by corporations and of course they'll simply call their greedy business practices solely as being "profitable" with no acknowledgment whatsoever as to their practices actually being greedy. The games you named found profitable models that worked well and are not considered by most of their fan base as greedy, but if that ever changes their fan base shouldn't hesitate one bit to let them know. The relationship between businesses and consumers must remain balanced. Calling them out as greedy is one of the main actions to be taken when their actions are exactly that.
On that, I agree, I like others will not hesitate to point fingers and denounce greedy tactics like pay to win in BF2. But here, we're talking about financials report that suggests including recurring revenue to maximize profit. Not we should make pay to win a norm.
Unfortunately, you are correct. As public corporations, they must seek to maximize their profits, and offer the best returns they can to their investors. That is their primary duty, not pleasing consumers, or playing nice. A bad reputation can ruin the bottom line; but obviously microtransactions and GaaS in general aren't ruining their rep. Too many gamers keep throwing their money into the corporate piles.
Can we talk about how Blizzard is doing it right with Overwatch? All new characters and maps are free. Lootboxes are easily earned in game. Constant balancing to address concerns. They've created really likeable characters (art style is SO important with this) and are merchandising out the ass. Comics, pops, clothes, you name it. Building a strong esports scene around it even being hosted on ESPN.
Into the bin with Konami, EA and Microsoft you go, Capcom.
Modern business makes me sick 🤢
Let's face it: they all are. All the AAA space is headed there, if it isn't there already. Too many sheep keep bleating "please please FLEECE ME!" If I were the CEO of one of these companies, I would consider it my duty to stockholders to chase this pile of money that so many gamers keep throwing at microtransactions and DLC.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.